Subscribe

November 09, 2011

Pro-Life Youth Are Turning the Tide

In his article, "Hidden Persuaders," Fred Barnes talks about "the unheralded gains of the pro-life movement." One of the factors in the recent advances is the growing number of young pro-lifers:

In 2011 alone, 24 states have enacted 52 new restrictions on abortion. Five now require an ultrasound before an abortion, two insisting that the screen be viewable by the mother. Four bar abortions after the baby is able to feel pain (at approximately 20 weeks). Eight have opted out of Obamacare. Five ban abortions by webcam (in which a doctor, not in person but videoconferencing with the mother, prescribes pills to induce abortion). Six trimmed or eliminated funds for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Texas led with a $64 million cut….

Three pro-life trends have spiked in 2011. The first is the rise in opposition to abortion among young people. The under-30 cohort was the most pro-choice in the 1970s, second most in the 1980s and 1990s. Now they’re “markedly less pro-choice” than any other age group, scholars Clyde Wilcox and Patrick Carr have written. “Clearly, something is distinctive about the abortion attitudes of the Millennial Generation of Americans.”

Indeed there is. Millennials haven’t grown more religious, politically conservative, or queasy about gay rights. Nor do they go out of their way to vote for pro-life candidates. But they tend to see abortion as a human rights violation. Thus their resistance to abortion is gradually increasing [emphasis mine].

Two comments on this: First, the best news about this is that young people are becoming pro-life for the right reason. We've succeeded in communicating the truth that the unborn are valuable human beings deserving of rights. Millennials are thinking through it, they're geting it, and they're responding. (Here's just one recent example.) And because they understand the reasoning behind the position, they're much more likely to stick with it, even if they find themselves under pressure to abandon it at some point in the future.

Secondly, I think there's a reason why we're having more luck communicating the identity of the unborn and their rights to young people. The truth is that avoiding guilt is a powerful force in preventing people from thinking clearly about any issue. How well we know the drive we all have to justify our actions when we've done something wrong! So in the case of abortion, when the number of women who have already had abortions is so high, we can expect that the pain of facing the question of the identity and value of the unborn and accepting the fact that one has killed one's own child will be too high for most people to face. There is simply too much at stake emotionally and morally for them to see the truth or to allow the conversation to move too far in the direction of human rights. The truth is just too horrible.

Thank God for the free forgiveness and cleansing from all guilt through Christ! Without it, who could stand? With it, a return to truth is possible because the fear of judgment is gone.

In the meantime, we have a much greater chance of convincing younger people who have not yet put an emotional obstacle in front of their moral intuition and ability to reason by having an abortion, and it's good strategy to focus efforts on winning them to the side of universal human rights while they're still open to it.

This site is called "Stand to Reason". Could you please stand and give us a reason for your apparent assumption that all indoctrination is inherently bad for youth. We would like a bigger piece of your mind than the one your statement offers.

This is a perfect example of "It's not how much data you have, but what you do with it". Would you say that I am justified in being suspicious of a statement that points to some group and interval being RIGHT? When one starts to use such language, he is referring to some kind of standard that needs to be examined closely before justification for a particular stance can be made. Without it, we swim in a sea of ambiguity.

Just regarding the science of polling, if you add “illegal in all circumstances” to anything – people are likely to reject it. Especially 18-29 year olds. Polling is tricky business. Also, ‘the life of the mother’ would be in jeopardy under that wording.

If that’s your glimmer of pro-abortion hope, then by all means, dig in and have a party.

It is exciting the strides Millennials making. They appear excited for life and active. So many of them are seeking pro-life internships and they want to be involved in the legal arena. I have great expectations for this generation.

"The question may not be perfect, but trends should not be created or destroyed by less-than-perfect questions."

"less-than-perfect" <> "loaded"
The difference is that "loaded" means that it is intended to promote a particular point of view. Like loaded dice it can only give one result. That's called cheating. You are free to call questions that reduce to cheating as less then perfect, but I prefer to call them cheating. It's a less politically correct and more bluntly accurate way of putting it.

If this poll question 'can only give one result' why do some people answer it one way and others answer it a different way?

No big deal here: You mean to say the question gives a biased result. By the way, that is also what loaded dice do.

Look, we all know who answers 'illegal in all circumstances'. It's some of those that would vote for the MS personhood law. The rest of these voters would answer 'illegal in almost all circumstances'.

Those who answer 'illegal in all circumstances' further divide into 2 subgroups. Some have forgotten that pregnancy can kill. The rest would let a woman die rather than let her have a life-saving abortion.

The bias you are complaining about is comes from those who would change their answer, when reminded that pregnancy can kill, to 'illegal in all but a few circumstances'.

Even with this defect, the question still identifies people with a certain view and we know what that view is.

And again, even with the bias, the lack of a trend associated with the question tells us the view is making no progress.

You can call the question loaded if you want. But, if you leave it that, then you have your head in the sand.

There is very little one can say to someone who is firmly convinced that numbers tell the whole story. I know from experience that they don't. I've seen all kinds of massive mistakes made by believing otherwise with colossally disastrous consequences to victims of policies based on this philosophy. It destroys human lives and should be abandoned to preserve them.